Say buh-bye to Starmer
And hello to Andy Burnham.
Starmer showed more emotion in his leavetaking than I’m aware of him showing before in public life. But I think he may be the only one crying:
Sir Keir Starmer choked up as he announced his resignation as UK prime minister Monday — less than two years after the Labour Party stormed to a landslide general election win.
Starmer, 63, set out a timetable to stand down after coming under mounting pressure following last month’s local elections, in which the governing Labour Party lost over 1,000 seats.
The prime minister announced his intention to step down after admitting the Labour Party was questioning whether he could lead it into the next general election, which must be held before July 2029 …
This represents a change of personnel rather than anything else:
Andy Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor, is the overwhelming favorite to succeed Starmer.
He defeated Reform UK by almost 20 percentage points in last week’s by-election in the pro-Brexit northwest England constituency of Makerfield. …
Starmer’s popularity has plunged after repeated missteps and U-turns on policies such as welfare reform, as well as his disastrous decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, a scandal-tarnished friend of Jeffrey Epstein, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington.
The Labour government has also failed to deliver promised economic growth and ease a longstanding cost-of-living crisis.
And yet, Labour will remain in charge. And who is Andy Burnham?:
Until last week, Burnham had been the Mayor of Manchester, Britain’s fifth largest city, for about a decade. He stepped down from that role to stand in a local by-election last week, easily clinching the seat in Makerfield, Greater Manchester, to become the local Member of Parliament in the House of Commons.
This was almost certainly no coincidence; Burnham stepped down and ran for the seat in order to pave the way for replacing Starmer. The seat he won makes it interesting:
Burnham’s recent victory in the Makerfield by-election was significant not only as it cleared his potential path to the premiership, however, but because he won decisively in exactly the type of constituency Labour has struggled to hold onto in recent years.
The seat is predominantly white British, traditionally working-class, post-industrial and voted heavily to leave the European Union in the 2016 “Brexit” referendum. Communities like Makerfield across the U.K. were considered Labour heartlands for decades, but they have become increasingly contested as many voters drift toward right-wing, populist parties such as Reform UK.
Burnham has spent years positioning himself as a viable alternative to Starmer, criticizing Labour’s leadership at moments of weakness while carefully cultivating his own national profile.
How Burnham would differ from Starmer as a national — and international leader — isn’t exactly clear.
Indeed. My guess is that it’s mostly a stylistic difference:
[Supporters] portray him as an authentic voice for post-industrial Britain — a man who understands communities that feel neglected by London. His “everyman” presentation and his easy communication style, they argue, contrasts with the rigidness and technocratic approach to politics that former government lawyer Starmer never managed to shed.
Critics argue, however, that Burnham has failed to make clear his views on some of the most defining issues of the day.
And that is no accident.
Could be worse, could have the Mayor of London at No. 10 Downing Street.
Give ’em time, om…give ’em time.
As far as I can tell, Burnham is little different from Starmer in terms of policies. He has more personality, which won’t help the UK much since the substance is the same or worse.
Nigel Farage has called for a snap election, which Labour presumably will not do.
See links at the article below. Burham’s close advisor, often referred to as his “brain,” is a Liberian-born radical. Burnham could easily be worse than Starmer.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2026/06/22/uk-meet-the-new-commie-worse-than-the-old-commie-n4954224
“And that is no accident.”
The modus operandi of Leftists, from politicians to Judges.
No history of Leftists decisions to slip in under the radar.
He will be another Communist leaning PM
England is cooked. Starmer….Burnham. To quote an infamous politician, ” Does it really matter?”.
My bet’s on,
“New Boss, same as the Old Boss”.
Clearly, the voters that gave Burnham his solid victory did not
“Pray we don’t get fooled again”…
“Won’t Get Fooled Again (Original Album Version)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NzLs-xSss0
“Burnham and the Legacy of Henry 8th”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdkRzdTehTM
Dr Gavin Ashenden, “British Catholic layman, author and commentator, and associate editor of the Catholic Herald. Formerly a priest of the Church of England, and subsequently a continuing Anglican bishop, he was appointed Chaplain to the Queen from 2008 until his resignation in 2017.”
Starmer landslide victory was because so many people did not vote. So he was what they got. Here in US, vote Rep, even if you have to hold your nose.
Burham had name recognition going for him. Maybe he governed Manchester more moderately so he was popular. However, as other here have noticed, Same Day, Same Ole S.
May have said this before here. Pretty sure I did elsewhere;
You can’t be this bad by accident. By ignorance, by not being interested. By being insulated. By not paying attention. There has to be a positive “pull” to do things this awfully horrible to so many people. Who complain so vehemently that the power of the state has to be used to shut them up. An affirmative move, not a matter of not paying attention of failing to pay the light bill (metaphor). He and the power structure had to WANT this. Because they had to exert themselves against a tide. What was actually going on?
I don’t want to watch a You Tube to learn what Dr. Asheden thinks of Burnham and Henry VIII.
Observers think Burnham won the by-election on the platform of getting rid of Starmer rather than on what he would do as PM. The Brits are about to find out.
I think the Brits are unwilling to admit, even to themselves, that they have placed themselves in the cold arms of tyranny through a suicidal neglect to pay attention and hold politicians accountable. Now the politicians are just about beyond their reach. The next regularly scheduled election is in 2029, which is time enough for a whole lot more mischief. I wonder if the Brits have it in them.
A good commentary by Jeff Childers.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/starmering-monday-june-22-2026-c
Part of his analysis noted that an event often criticized by both the Right and the Left had a purpose other than most pundits supposed.
Trump isn’t always playing to the peanut gallery.
Childers pointed out that Bondi’s Binder didn’t have to contain the evidence about Mandelson at that time, Starmer just had to think that it might. And if it didn’t come out then, it could do so later whenever Trump chose.
Of course, it did become public, but because the Democrats insisted on publishing the entire trove of files.
Read Burnham has a Black African Marxist immigrant as a advisor who wants to go full Marxism.
Just because Starmer is a twit, tangled up with Epstein, and covering up and facilitating the industrial rape of indigenous British girls for decades doesn’t justify throwing in the Roosian war against Europe.
Vladdy has his cheerleaders even today, Jeff Childers.
Aggie:
Heck of a comment! To paraphrase Plato:
“The price of apathy in public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
I believe we make the same errors repeatedly throughout history. We never really learn.
Keir Stalin is a bloodless apparatchik beureaucrat and Andy Burnham will be just as awful. Britain has fallen and for that you can blame both the Tories and the Labourites. Counting Andy Burnham the U.K. has had 7 Prime Ministers in the last 10 years – think about that.
There is resistance in Britain, but not enough. It should, at this point, be overwhelming. Occidental societies are hopelessly enervated. A best case scenario is that you have a patriotic government in three years and they implement a remigration program.
Art Deco
That would require a lot of people who could stand up to being called “racist” and “Islamophobic”.
— Shirehome
In 2019 the Tories won a resounding victory and Boris Johnson became PM because Farage decided not to contest, signaling his supporters to vote Tory. That enabled Brexit.
But then Johnson presided over a gigantic surge of non-EU immigration, which cut directly against the largest single motive for Brexit in the first place. He was replaced eventually by Sunak. At the time, the Experts sighed in relief and informed everyone that ‘the grownups are back in charge’.
Right-wing parties should be wary of ‘grownups’. Sunak embodied precisely the metro-elite version of Toryism, the UK version of the Cornyn, Tillis, etc.
Anyway, this time Farage declined to let the Tories have an uncontested field, and the result was that Labour won a huge majority of MPs on one of the smallest popular majorities in decades. The Tories suffered their worst, most humiliating electoral defeat in over a century, after winning a huge victory in 2019.
The thing is that Farage was probably right. The Tories had proven, over and over, that they just simply would not, maybe inherently could not, do what the electorate wanted. Their business wing and academic elite wings wouldn’t tolerate it. But the only practical alternative was Labour, which in practice shared most of the same goals.
It was the same nauseating choice that American right-wingers faced in 2008 and 2012. Turn out and put McCain/Romney over the top, and watch them pass immigration amnesties and otherwise implement the Business Agenda. Further, and esp. in the case of Romney, the GOP would have taken a McCain/Romney win as a signal that when the chips were down the Republican voters would turn out for a Business Agenda candidate and they could proceed with that agenda and ignore the issues the base voters cared about.
And then, of course, if they had turn out for either, in four years they’d have faced the same sickening choice again: McCain/Romney or a liberal Democrat.
The price of Trump was eight years of Barack Obama. Likewise, the price of change for conservative voters in Britain is probably some years of Labour control, because otherwise it’s just the same old globalist/corporatist Tories again, and both Labour and the Tories will produce slight variations on the same theme, because the same social/cultural class controls both.
The Uniparty has to be shattered, in both America and Britain, if anything significant is to change.
That would require a lot of people who could stand up to being called “racist” and “Islamophobic”
==
And? Recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent”.
— Art Deco
It’s cliche but important and true: humans are tribal. A lot of these people are emotionally bonded to a particular social tribe, which often includes their immediate family and friends, and so they are terrified of going against the received wisdom of that tribe. They fear being socially outcast, sometimes fear losing income and status if they transgress against the tribal rules.
“Banished! Friar, the damned use that word in Hell!” — Romeo and Juliet, Act 3 Scene 3
It’s cliche but important and true: humans are tribal. A lot of these people are emotionally bonded to a particular social tribe,
==
The majority of the population in any occidental country are in the households of wage earners or pensioners who were wage earners ten or fifteen years ago. They’re not bound by the neuroses of schoolteachers.